PDA

View Full Version : For Independence Day....a Revolutionary Conspiracy Theory


Hutch
4th July 2009, 07:54 PM
...And not the one most Americans would think of (Benedict Arnold's act of Treason to turn over what is now West Point to the British is an amply documented conspiracy that was discovered). I speak of the mysterious actions of the Brothers Howe.

General William Howe was the Commander of British forces in America and his brother, Admiral Lord Howe, commanded the British Naval forces. They led a force of almost 30,000 men and nearly 100 warships against the City of New York and General Washington's force of about 20,000 militia.

Washington was (even then) an imposing leader of men, but as a battlefield tactician he was still learning his trade. He split his outnumbered army, leaving the bulk in Manhattan and the rest on Long Island. General Howe defeated this part of Washington's Army at the Battle of Long Island and had it surrounded, with the river at it's back...but did not follow though and capture the Americans, who managed to escape by barges that night under the noses of the British. And the fleet that could have cut them off? Well, they hadn't planned well and were caught out by the currents (so they say) and so Washington escaped to Manhattan.

And then....General Howe sat for nearly a month and did very little. When he finally attacked Manhattan he again pushed Washington North and finally got him to evacuate the island (again, the British fleet seemed unable to stop these crossings) without fighting a decisive battle that should have crushed the rebellion once and for all.

Historians have argued for many years that the Howe's secretly sympathized with the colonists and thus conspired to allow Washington to slip away and continue the fight. While vigorously disputed by most historians, it is notable that the Howes were much better commanders than they showed during this action and served with bravery and distinction against other foes over long and honored careers.

But this time, in 1776, they did about as poor a job as you could imagine....bad luck, or conspiracy?

**Some think the Howe's were aided by a Major Dewey and a Colonel Cheatam, but that is but speculation....;)

Travis
5th July 2009, 01:52 AM
IIRC William Howe had some issues with his officers and that a certain complacency may have allowed the successful evacuations which was later rectified by some personnel reassignments. As to harboring sympathies........did he ever express such views in writing anywhere?

Caustic Logic
5th July 2009, 02:03 AM
Cool theory, or rather set of observations, Hutch. This one I've never heard before. It's worthy of elaboration - extra clues, pro or con, writings, anything about family company investments and connections, etc.

There is this notion around that the revolution was partially phony, masking some kind of bargain where certain links would be upheld and others cut. I dunno - we sure ditn' stay enemies very long - perhaps never. ???

kookbreaker
5th July 2009, 06:42 AM
There is this notion around that the revolution was partially phony, masking some kind of bargain where certain links would be upheld and others cut. I dunno - we sure ditn' stay enemies very long - perhaps never. ???

Excuse me? War of 1812? UK support for the Confederacy? Assorted confrontations in the 19th century? (Fifty-four forty or fight?)

That said there is some argument that Howe's sympathies were not so much with the colonists as they were interested in embarrassing the ruling English party.

Alferd_Packer
5th July 2009, 05:16 PM
zoom in to see the name in the window of the second floor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/CambridgeMACartalkPlazaCuriousGeo1.jpg

Travis
5th July 2009, 06:41 PM
Excuse me? War of 1812? UK support for the Confederacy? Assorted confrontations in the 19th century? (Fifty-four forty or fight?)

That said there is some argument that Howe's sympathies were not so much with the colonists as they were interested in embarrassing the ruling English party.

You didn't have to be a traitorous colonist to be dissatisfied with King George and the Parliament of the time.

Horatius
5th July 2009, 07:24 PM
You didn't have to be a traitorous colonist to be dissatisfied with King George and the Parliament of the time.


...but it helped. [/Monarchist]


Stop whining and pay your taxes, yanks!


;)

GreNME
5th July 2009, 08:30 PM
You didn't have to be a traitorous colonist to be dissatisfied with King George and the Parliament of the time.

Especially if you were British military. There's a reason Hessians were (later) brought in for muscle work, and it wasn't totally because of France.

Caustic Logic
6th July 2009, 04:06 PM
**Some think the Howe's were aided by a Major Dewey and a Colonel Cheatam, but that is but speculation....;)

Okay, okay... I get it. Thanks Alferd. Howe, and Dewey and Cheatam... Now is that a joke on the name Howe attached to a genuine observation are are you being funny all around? I'll be forced to do five min investigoogling now to see how big a fool I've been made of here. :)

Done enough, looks plausible, I don't feel too bad. Connected kids those Howes...

theprestige
6th July 2009, 04:29 PM
Based on my recent study of the U.S. Civil War, the actions of the Brothers Howe described in the OP are entirely ordinary. Apparently generals in all times and places are adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory--usually because they lack the 20/20 hindsight of later historians, that burns away the fog of war.

KingMerv00
6th July 2009, 04:41 PM
For Independence Day....a Revolutionary Conspiracy Theory

The irony is that the Revolution WAS a criminal conspiracy...enacted in secret...and involved Freemasons. :eek:

Horatius
6th July 2009, 04:50 PM
Based on my recent study of the U.S. Civil War, the actions of the Brothers Howe described in the OP are entirely ordinary. Apparently generals in all times and places are adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory--usually because they lack the 20/20 hindsight of later historians, that burns away the fog of war.



That's just what they want you to think!

CORed
13th July 2009, 11:13 AM
A small quibble: "Fifty-four forty or fight" was a campaign slogan used by James K. Polk when he was running for president. Fifty four forty referred to latitude 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude which was the northern boundary of the Oregon territory, at the time jointly occupied by Britain and the US. It meant we want it all, or we will go to war. Like many such slogans and promises, it was never actually carried out. Polk signed the treaty splitting the Oregon territory at 49 degrees north latitude. I'm sure that fact that we were at war with Mexico was a factor, as a two front war probably would not have been a good idea.